A.K.P.K. Development Corp. v. Kirsheh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A.K.P.K. Development Corp. v. Kirsheh

209 A.D.2d 463, 619 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11231

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 463 (A.K.P.K. Development Corp. v. Kirsheh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.K.P.K. Development Corp. v. Kirsheh, 209 A.D.2d 463, 619 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated June 7, 1993, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a default judgment upon the defendant’s default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment. The record indicates that the defendant failed to establish both a reasonable excuse for failing to answer the complaint and a meritorious defense to the underlying claims (see, MacMarty, Inc. v Scheller, 201 AD2d 706, 707; Korea Exch. Bank v Attilio, 186 AD2d 634). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated June 7, 1993, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a default judgment upon the defendant’s default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment. The record indicates that the defendant failed to establish both a reasonable excuse for failing to answer the complaint and a meritorious defense to the underlying claims (see, MacMarty, Inc. v Scheller, 201 AD2d 706, 707; Korea Exch. Bank v Attilio, 186 AD2d 634). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 463, 619 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akpk-development-corp-v-kirsheh-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack